“What this does is make us the first-ever media to capture as an industry, basically the cross-platform demand by brand. No other industry does this.” Mary Berner

Magazine Media 360 is a newly created industry metric that captures demand for magazine media content by measuring audiences across multiple platforms and formats (including print/digital editions, websites and video) to provide a comprehensive and accurate picture of magazine media vitality. Magazine Media 360° uses data from leading third-party providers and from the reader universe. This is the first time ever by any media to measure and communicate cross-platform consumer demand by brand.

Mary Berner, President & CEO, MPA – The Association of Magazine Media, believes in the driving force of this new metric that can measure platforms as a whole, rather than just from the print side.

I reached out to Mary recently and our conversation was focused on the new consumer centric and audience-first mentality Magazine Media 360 promotes and advocates. The time for this type of thinking in the magazine media industry, Berner believes, is one that has finally come and will help to change the reality of the way the industry measures and monetizes the many platforms offered to the consumer today.

So sit back and enjoy the Mr. Magazine™ interview with Mary Berner, President & CEO, MPA.
But first the sound-bites…

On the purpose of Magazine Media 360: For us as an industry, this is a game changer. What it does is reflect a very seismic shift away from communicating and capturing print-only metrics to a whole ecosystem metric.
On the timing of the new measuring system: I don’t think the industry was ready for it yet, I think we needed some critical mass in terms of multi-platform distribution content and frankly the third party research providers weren’t yet ready to get the data; so I think the time is right now.
On whether she believes the magazine media industry’s problems have all been self-inflicted: I would say that print is a part of the consumer consumption experience, an extremely important part, but I would say that we haven’t told the story in regards to consumer demand up to this point.
On the major stumbling blocks she believes will be encountered along the way: To be truthful, our attention in trying to figure out all the things that could and might go wrong ahead of time and addressing any and all challenges before we actually launched this, puts us in a position where we’ve asked and answered many of the stumbling blocks.
On what’s next for Mary Berner and Magazine Media 360: This is just the beginning. I think it’s a good first step, but what we need to show is engagements, because we know from research in various companies the engagements in these brands of these multi-platform experiences are really extraordinary.

And now the lightly edited transcription of the Mr. Magazine™ interview with Mary Berner, President & CEO, MPA… Keep in mind, that since this is a brand new tool the MPA is using in measuring the strength of magazines and magazine media I’ve opted for a full explanation and presentation that Mary shared with me. It is essential to document and understand this new milestone marker in the history of magazines and magazine media..

Mary Berner: For us as an industry, this is a game changer. What it does is reflect a very seismic shift away from communicating and capturing print-only metrics to a whole ecosystem metric. And as such when you look at the data, it actually redefines the state of magazine media. We believe that consumer demand also means money.

The idea for this and I believe you and I talked about it and debated it, but essentially the word magazine was the impetus for this entire idea. The word magazine for most people almost always refers to the print product. And yet every company pretty much operates as multi-platform, multimedia companies.

So the impetus was the shift from being magazine companies to magazine media companies and every single one of them does this and this is an interesting concept, so keep this in mind when you think about our methodology. The one thing that’s unique about magazine media and we’re defining it as a content brand that is anchored in a print magazine, but also disseminates magazine media content across many platforms and formats, so the magazine media content strategy is, for the most part, a platform-specific strategy, which means you create the content specific to the platform, as opposed to, for example, a television strategy which is platform agnostic. And that means you have an everywhere, anywhere strategy where the consumer gets the same content wherever they are, whenever they want it.

And by definition the audience augmenting, or differentiating content has actually been audience augmenting, because any one of these experiences, for example on Sunset, you consume as a consumer on its own and you would do so because you understand the Sunset brand means something, whereas the audience fragmented television strategy is audience fragmenting because obviously, you wouldn’t watch the same program again and again.

And this pretty much applies…this kind of platform-specific content strategy, to just about every brand, at least the major ones. So, for example, I could consume the video content from Woman’s World, which for them would be focused on exercise, without ever being a reader of the print version of the magazine media content. And we’re finding that the numbers bear this out, that digital-only consumers are going to the brand experience under the magazine media brand and this applies to just about all of the major magazines.

Essentially, here’s how we got to where we got to; right now what we have is print metrics and with advertising, for example; out of 10 advertisers only two limit their investment in that brand to the print version, only two. Eight of the others also invest across the multiple platforms. So it’s 80% that do something besides print. Yet a PIB (Publishers Information Bureau) or an advertising paging number only captures one part of it and in no way captures an advertiser’s commitment to a brand. So by definition it’s incomplete and therefore inaccurate.

And that played out again and again this fall. For example, the September issue of one of the big fashion magazines had a PIB number that was down, yet their advertising performance was the best it had been in 15 years, because the advertisers committed to multi-platform packages. In isolation, a print advertising page number just isn’t a great metric anymore.

And ditto for circulation if you look at the AAM (Alliance for Audited Media, the former ABC, Audit Bureau of Circulation) statements. Circulation is basically the counting of copies sold or distributed. Yet, if you add up all the AAM titles, they represent only 30% of the total print magazine audience, which is how planners buy. So, it doesn’t really tell the whole story. And then when you actually apply that to the whole ecosystem, the AAM circulation represents only 21% of the total audience. So using a circulation number in isolation, I think it does certain things, but in isolation by definition, it’s like pegging the audience or the vitality of the Super Bowl based on the number of people in the stadium, it essentially under captures.

Yet, in light of all that, what we’ve asked ourselves is what is the common courtesy and how do we measure what’s really going on, because, this is the data we got for July; we did three months of data and essentially what we’re seeing is that the lion’s share of the business is still print and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, if not forever, but other platforms and formats are gaining scale. And when you look at the whole ecosystem and you leave out those others: video, mobile, web, desktop, laptop and digital; you leave out 35% of the business essentially. And when you look at the total pie, it was up 7.8% overall.

People say that the lion’s share of revenue and profit is in the print publications and I say, yes, that’s absolutely true for now. However, that is rapidly changing. Look at Meredith; Meredith is up to almost 20% of their revenue coming in from digital sources and that’s kind of an old school company. And it’s rapidly growing. The only proxy really for vitality, I would argue, for current health or future promise would be consumer demand. It’s certainly how brands like BuzzFeed are measured. And it’s also the only common currency among all media. In a world where you can’t define what makes television television, consumer demand is an important one.

So, what we did was we created Magazine Media 360 and essentially it’s an attempt to present a comprehensive picture of consumer demand for magazine brands. And in such, it captures print and digital editions; it captures websites, including desktop, laptop, mobile and video. Next, this month we’re going to release a social media report that’s separate, it doesn’t roll up into that because it’s a whole different animal.

What this does is make us the first-ever media to capture as an industry, basically the cross-platform demand by brand. No other industry does this. Television gives Nielsen ratings when they want to; they don’t give them as an industry, they don’t give them by brand and they certainly don’t give any revenue numbers. So, what we’ve done with this is capture that additional 35% which makes this a comprehensive and a consumer centric and really a more accurate barometer, if you will, of a company and an industry’s vitality.

But how do we figure out how to do this? Well, we decided we had to use third party reputable information, otherwise people would game it. You had to qualify it; you had to actually be multi-platform to qualify. So we used very reputable data from Nielsen, comScore and others and we had a very, very rigorous process about how to get the data and what to pull.

What we’ve essentially decided to do after consultations with many, many experts is we’re pulling, not page views, not traffic, but unique visitors and unique viewers and audience numbers. It’s a more conservative number and it gives us a more accurate picture.

So with third party data we’ve covered the whole pie and the story it tells is interesting. We have 95% industry buy-in, which essentially means we had 30 companies to buy-in and that represents 147 brands. We only had three brands not do it that qualified. One was the Shank titles, the other was a tennis magazine, mostly because they just didn’t respond to emails and the other is Wenner, because you have to also be a MPA member to qualify and there are only two major companies that aren’t, Wenner and Bauer, but it didn’t affect the numbers, even with them not in here, it covers 95% of the magazine reader universe and basically represents the entire industry.

The process works with all 147 brands giving their data to us and they pull it from comScore, Nielsen and other reputable companies. We then aggregate the data and post it publicly, so every single month we will post 147 brands and their consumer-demand number by platform and then a total aggregate 360 number. So it’s really an unprecedented model of transparency and it took an enormous amount of courage, if you ask me, from all these publishers. And we at the MPA will show the trends.

For the first one we launched publicly, it was August over August; we do the same period over the same period; what we saw was a 10% growth in total audience and we saw that was coming from mobile web, a lot of mobile web growth. And print, while it’s a smaller part of the pie, was actually up 1.1%, so it’s just a smaller part of a growing pie.

We’ll soon begin social media reports, which we’ll do toward the end of the month and the response was uniformly positive. Most importantly the advertising community and these are three of the biggest buyers representing three of the biggest agencies and every single one of them was applauding because the concept is you can’t sell what you can’t measure; you can’t sell it to a consumer and you can’t sell it to an advertiser. So, what we’ve done is thoroughly obvious; while it’s not easy to get everyone to agree, it’s obvious we should be capturing consumer-demand across all the platforms. And this is a very, very important indicator. The press was uniformly positive as well and I love what Mashable said because they’re always trashing magazines (laughs) and they said: if we assembled the study in an attempt to refute the assertion that magazine audiences are dwindling, the data vindicates them and that kind of said it all.

Also The Wall Street Journal said: magazine publishers can collectively point to some positive trends. Of course, we’re not saying that there aren’t problems because there certainly are, but we’re saying that the first step is to figure out what the consumers are doing, because there is no business if there isn’t consumer demand. And consumer demand is actually quite robust. Now this is not a report that shows everybody up, about 45 titles were down, so it’s pretty accurate.

That’s what this is all about. It’s really a reflection of how the business has changed, how we operate and how our content is consumed across multiple platforms. It’s the first step in capturing, measuring and communicating those reflections.
Samir Husni: I was just in Cannes at the Distripress Congress and my presentation was about “audience first.” And this is what Magazine Media 360 is saying: let’s focus on and be consumer centric. Why did we wait so long to do this?

Mary Berner: You know why? Because it’s really hard to get 147 brands and 30 CEO’s to agree. And I really didn’t wait that long, I’d been here two years and we got this done in six months. I also don’t think the industry was ready for it yet, I think we needed some critical mass in terms of multi-platform distribution content and frankly the third party research providers weren’t yet ready to get the data; so I think the time is right now.

The other question people ask is why don’t other media do it and my response is: they should. But it requires consensus, it requires industry consensus. And that’s a heavy lift.
Samir Husni: It’s as you said, magazine media is unlike any other medium, and you don’t get the same experience. If I’m watching a video, regardless of which platform, it’s the same video, where the magazine experience is completely different.

Mary Berner: All the content is created under a brand umbrella. So if I’m a Vogue person, the brand gives me permission to experience a whole lot of things under that umbrella. We’re the only media that’s actually set up well for that. CBS isn’t a brand. Other media are; I think ESPN is a brand; they actually do a great job at it.
Samir Husni: The new buzz phrase today is: print isn’t dead, it’s just in decline, but it’s still the cornerstone of our industry? Do you agree?

Mary Berner: I would say that print is a part of the consumer consumption experience, an extremely important part, but I would say that we haven’t told the story in regards to consumer demand up to this point. And when you do that, when you don’t tell the whole story, what fills that vacuum is a relentless and inaccurate story about one part of the business.

It’s inaccurate, like circulation. Everyone harps on newsstand. Newsstand is 8% of the total, 8%. And at its peak, 20 years ago, it was less than 20%. So there’s a kind of common narrative around print. Advertising paging over the last five years is down less than 8% in total. So, print has its challenges, but what isn’t even captured in those numbers is the migration of advertising dollars to other platforms. Therefore, it doesn’t tell an accurate story. We haven’t told an accurate advertising story or an accurate consumer-demand story yet.

Samir Husni: What do you think will be your major stumbling block? The honeymoon has been great, the reaction has been great; do you think it’s going to be smooth sailing from here or are you expecting some turbulence along the way?

Mary Berner: To be truthful, our attention in trying to figure out all the things that could and might go wrong ahead of time and addressing any and all challenges before we actually launched this, puts us in a position where we’ve asked and answered many of the stumbling blocks. Many of them had to do with methodology or transparency, things like that, so the only thing that I can imagine is maybe somebody won’t like their numbers.

I think the opportunity is that what we’ll see is a set of tools that will start people talking about it. How do we figure out how to use this to help us to buy?
Samir Husni: What are some of the criteria that you’re now going to use at The New York Times box score?

Mary Berner: It’s already changed. We’ve affected with this, just look at the numbers. They’re all up, two weeks in a row, a 100%. Let me tell you why The New York Times doesn’t use ad pages and why the entire industry was behind that, because it doesn’t tell an accurate story, by definition it tells an incomplete story. So, we don’t have something to replace that with, in terms of the advertising performance. We don’t, but until we do we have an obligation, in fact a responsibility, to stop reporting inaccurate data, because it is used to peg the vitality of an industry and it doesn’t do that. You could have had a spectacular PIB month and had a terrible advertising month. You could have had a terrible PIB month and a spectacular advertising month. It only captures the print performance. And as such, it’s just not comprehensive. And the reaction to that has been a little bit of, well, what am I going to use? But once I explain it to analysts and reporters, everybody gets it. You can’t argue with it, because it’s true.

Now what people will argue about is, they’ll say we need to get some replacement advertising data and what I’d like to remind the world of is, we’re the only industry that has released advertising data for decades as an industry. No other industry does it. We’ve been doing it and we’ve been doing it up to the point where it’s not accurate anymore. We had enormous transparency. Think about television, there’s no revenue numbers. They talk about the upfront when it’s good, but they don’t do it as an industry. Radio doesn’t, digital doesn’t; none of them do.

So we were in the forefront of transparency, but now that it’s not representative of the advertising performance of a brand, company or the industry, we have a responsibility to stop promoting and communicating it.
Samir Husni: You have a very nice feather in your cap now, so what’s next for Mary?

Mary Berner: This is just the beginning. I think it’s a good first step, but what we need to show is engagements, because we know from research in various companies the engagements in these brands of these multi-platform experiences are really extraordinary and that is a differentiator for magazine media and so, how do we do that? And I really wasn’t looking for a feather in my cap, I really wasn’t. (Laughs) But you can’t change the narrative about magazines until you start capturing and talking about magazine media. You have to start talking about the business the way the business is now.
Samir Husni: Thank you.

When it comes to magazines and magazine media we are not lacking the research that shows the effectiveness of print and its reach. We are lacking people who are willing to translate that research and put it into practice. What profit do we gain if magazine companies ask their researchers and research departments to conduct all kinds of research and then ignore it?

I have been traveling the world in the last three weeks. I have attended and spoke at four different “research gatherings” in Lisbon, Portugal(The IMMAA Conference); Dubai, United Arab Emirates (The Arab Media Forum) ; Barcelona, Spain (The FIPP Research Conference); and Amsterdam, The Netherlands (Sanoma). Most of the readers of my columns and blogs know my views on print in this digital age. However, what I learned from those international meetings is that I am not alone. I learned that what I have been preaching is not a figment of my imagination or the fact that I am, in the words of John Harrington, a “print passionista.” I learned that print is still alive and kicking worldwide and researchers are showing the evidence for that statement on a daily basis.

Study after study is showing what print can deliver to advertisers and to readers at the same time. The return on the investment is great for both customers. To say I was relieved to hear that and to see all the research would be an understatement, but to say I was not bewildered as to why the leaders of those media companies are not following up on their own findings would be ludicrous on my part.

I asked the media researchers at one of the conferences, “Why after all this data, do your CEOs and publishers continue to push ‘Digital First” and not apply the findings of your research?” The simple answer I heard was that they’ve closed their eyes and ears and are determined that the only future is the digital way. They, in fact, are not only ignoring the research but also ignoring reality and common sense. I wonder if that is the effect of the “virtual” world we live in today that makes us forget about anything and everything that is physical and tangible.

None of the researchers, including myself, deny that we live in a visual, digital, mobile age; however, that does not mean that print should play second fiddle to digital in today’s market place. All agreed that, yes, some magazines are struggling, some others are dying, but a lot more are coming to the market place. When visiting Dubai for example, to speak and attend the 12th Annual Arab Media Forum, I visited one of the many newsstands at the Mall of Dubai. You name the magazine it was there. Marie Claire in Arabic, Esquire, the Middle East edition with a promise of a weekly print Esquire coming soon to the market place. Forbes Middle East in both languages, English and Arabic, Men’s Fitness Middle East, National Geographic in Arabic, etc. etc.

In Lisbon I picked up several new magazines, and in Barcelona I picked up the first issue of Women’s Health that appeared on the newsstands the day I was leaving… By the time I landed in Amsterdam the first issue of Women’s Health in Dutch was welcoming me at the airport. New magazines are aplenty and there is no shortage of them.

And that joke about the #last print issue of Newsweek is only alive and well in these United States of America; the rest of the world is still enjoying a printed Newsweek. Needless to say the recent news about the possible sale of Newsweek is no joke. I could easily say I told you so, but I am resisting this temptation since there are a lot of folks who are offering their opinions about the past, present and future of Newsweek.

So, why the doom and gloom you may ask in the magazine business? Well, for one, the magazine industry is not making as much money as it used to make. Other non-media platforms are making more money than in ad revenues than the entire print industry. None of the media entities have figured a way, a good way, to make dollars and not pennies from their digital ventures. And above all, our institutional memories are so in need of a crash course in learning the past and how it applies to the present.

Did you know that Radio advertising revenues exceeded all of print ad revenues in 1934? Did you know that Television advertising revenues exceeded all of print and radio advertising revenues in 1955? The mere fact that someone else, some other medium, media related or not, is making more money than the magazine or print industry, does not mean that print or magazines are dead. If my neighbor is making more money than I am, it definitely does not mean that I am pushing up daisies in some serene cemetery on the backside of nowhere!

It is about time to wake up and focus on our customers, the readers/viewers and advertisers. If we are going to survive we better listen to our customers and follow their wants and desires. Research is showing that customers in this digital age still love and utilize magazines and other print entities. Why is it print and magazines leaders are not listening to their own research and studies? I do not know, but what I know for sure is that it is funny when less than 25% of iPad owners tell researchers that they prefer to read magazines on digital devices and media reporters spread the news of the digital success of reading… Folks, read that aforementioned statement one more time, less than 25% of iPad owners enjoy reading their magazines on the tablet… What about the 75% that don’t? Since when is 25% a much bigger deal than 75%? I do not know.

In closing, maybe all the naysayers of the magazine industry and the future of print in a digital age, need to take a trip or few trips overseas. Well, forget about overseas, maybe a trip to Des Moines, Iowa and see what Meredith is doing and the guarantees it is offering their advertising clients. Where there is a will and a vision, there is a way. Print and magazines are not dead; some folks wish they were to fulfill their own prophecies. False prophets start believing their own divinations and they work hard to fulfill them. Well, I have two words for them, go fish.

Print is well, alive and kicking. Today’s print is not your father’s print. Today’s magazines are not your father’s magazines. But in both cases they are still print and they are still magazines. Like it or not, they are here to stay. So, to the gloom and doom zealots: go fish in another pond!

The receipt you see to the right is the actual amount that I spent at Wal-Mart on 18 different magazines: $145.61. That’s an average of $8 per magazine. For the typical American looking to buy two of their favorites a week, adding an extra $16 to your grocery bill can cause you to sit those two inedible objects right back on the newsstands.

And we wonder why newsstand sales are declining.

Let’s take a look at what I got for my money, why I chose the issues I did and which ones were worth the price. In no particular order:

1. Oxygen 15 Minute Workouts – a very specialized magazine that focuses on 15 minute workouts and affirms the validity of such abbreviated physical activities by asserting to be ‘Your no-excuses guide to getting fit fast.’ And while I’m sure there is a great deal of truth in that statement…the price to actually find that out is $9.99. A fitness magazine that costs $10? I was expecting to see Richard Simmons leap from between the pages when I opened it, and lead me in a ‘Sweating to the Oldies’ workout.
2. Men’s Fitness – staying with the physical…the newsstand issue I bought at Wal-Mart is different from the subscriber’s issue. Different, in that it has an alternate cover and the paper the magazine is printed on is totally opposite, with the newsstand issue being much thicker and heavier than the subscriber’s copy. Why is that? Why are we not consistent between out subscribers and our single-copy sales as far as the quality of our product? Shouldn’t we be?

3. Rolling Stone – Special Collectors Edition – Bob Dylan – And of course, the title says it all. Legendary Bob Dylan is on the cover holding a harmonica a hair’s breadth away from his mouth, in preparation to play; all the while staring back at you with that brooding, stony glare that he is known for. And for $11.99 you can count yourself among the lucky ones who own this collector’s copy. His top 100 greatest songs are ranked and listed here, with Bono selecting “Like a Rolling Stone” as number one. It’s an up close and personal look at the man and his music as only RollingStone can put together. Worth every penny!

4. Nail It! – The premier issue of a magazine about nail trends – of the finger variety. A bi-monthly magazine devoted to the latest in nail polishes, decals, and tips. A must have for nail fashionistas everywhere. And for $5.99 you have to decide if it’s worthy or not. But it does prove niche publishing is vogue with the country, and in some cases profitable. It remains to be seen whether this one will be.

5. Chicken Dinners – from Better Homes and Gardens Special Interest Publications – an entire magazine devoted to chicken. Whether it’s fried, skillet-prepared, baked, or brined with maple, this magazine will give you the recipe for preparing it. And it’ll only cost you $9.99 to read. Of course, I would imagine searching the net for few hours one may find the same chicken content for free. However, as experience makers folks, it seems OK to charge $10 for a magazine that shows us how to cook chicken.

7. Family Circle – for $1.99 you get the traditional Family Circle fare at a great price. Unlike the $2.79 cover price at Kroger.

8. Family Circle + Ladies’ Home Journal – a two-magazine baggie deal that is a tremendous opportunity for fans to get both magazines for the low price of $3.29.

9. Historical – the collector’s issue celebrating Black History Month – a vast array of information on many black leaders from yesterday and today. But for $7.99 an issue, you could probably get your history lesson a lot cheaper somewhere else.

10. Flea Market Style – A magazine that for $9.95 an issue will show you how to take rummage sale and junk sale items and turn them into usable, and in some cases, extraordinary novelties. Another niche publication for just that right audience; whether the price is right for those folks, will be up to them. I bought it because of an article about a home near by in Water Valley, Miss. produced by a former student of mine.

11. Matthew Mead’s Recycled Style – Another magazine where throwaways and no-longer used items are, this time, ‘recycled’ and used again. But to read the recycling revelations from the folks over at Oxmoor House, who bring you this magazine, you’re going to have to shell out $12.99.

12. Taylor Swift – Special Collector’s Edition – this magazine is just what the title indicates – a magazine devoted to country music sensation, Taylor Swift. And for $6.99 it can be in your collectible magazine stack today. But should it be at that price? Up to you. By the way the real name of the magazine, the smallest type on the cover, is Teen Party magazine.

13. Self – a whole new look from the inside/out, Self magazine has rejuvenated and redesigned. It’s fresh, crisp and only $3.99

14. Vanity Fair – Special Collector’s Edition – chock full of stylish information and a foldout cover that not only promotes the issue with content teasers as you unfold, but also shares space with a very imaginative Calvin Klein ad. And the magazine is almost 400 pages…all for only $4.99.

15. Cosmopolitan – the March issue with the matured version of teen sensation Miley Cyrus. The magazine sells for $3.99 and my Wal-Mart issue has a $1 off coupon taped to the cover. Of course, only redeemable at Wal-Mart, but nobody’s perfect. By the way I did not use my coupon. I needed to keep it so I can show it to y’all.

16. What to Eat Now – a niche effort from the good folks’ at TIME that has two different covers. One has a more vertical slant to it (no pun intended), the other a more horizontal. For folks who just can’t decide how they want to see vegetables and fruit displayed on a magazine cover. By the way, it’s 12.99.

17. Celebrate Weddings – a bridal magazine from Hoffman Media devoted to everything matrimonially trendy. Your impending nuptials can feel the effects of the suggestions between the pages for $9.99.

18. Prevention – two different covers promoting getting back into shape by walking. The cover lines are exactly the same, other than the colors, but the pictures are totally different, yet, almost the same, other than the poses. Why the need for two different covers? It is a question I will need to address in a future blog. But for now I am happy to spend $3.99 to get cover 2 of the magazine.

Eighteen magazines for $145.61 …I think it’s a good thing for the magazine industry that Mr. Magazine™ and his love for magazines exist.

Next stop Kroger… the ticket, $95.68. Tomorrow is another day! Indeed the cost of “magazine living” is on the rise.

When I was interviewed last October by the Associated Press about Tina Brown’s decision to kill the print edition of Newsweek, I put the failure of Newsweek, to the surprise of very few, right on the shoulders of Ms. Brown. Only a former managing editor of TIME (who by the way was pushed up and out of the magazine that at least five years ago stopped counting Newsweek as a competitor) said about my remarks: “No one said anything stupider than Samir Husni.” That same editor, turned media columnist, amazingly appears in the last issue of Newsweek talking about a competition that ceased to exit years ago).

Heaven forbid that one ever criticize an editor for a magazine failure. It is always someone else’s fault… advertisers, circulation, the weather, anything or anyone but the editor. An editor’s choice of content, covers, or even writers, let alone, an editor’s knowledge of the audience of a magazine, never makes up a recipe for failure. Right? Well, that’s what you are lead to believe reading Tina Brown’s final editorial in the “#LastPrintIssue” of Newsweek.

The content of Newsweek for the last two years, from Princess Di at 50, to the First Gay President, to the famous sexy food cover, are three examples of how content (i.e. bad content, irrelevant content to a magazine’s audience, etc.) can and will lead to your demise. Remember Talk?

Well, here are ten excuses I was able to discern from Ms. Brown’s own editorial about the demise of the print edition of Newsweek and my comments on each excuse:

10: To “see the full evolution of the spanking-new, all-digital Newsweek Global…” if it is going to be anything like the evolution of the spanking-new print edition of Newsweek two years ago, don’t brace yourself for any positive surprises. If you could not make it “national” are you kidding me about making it “global?”

9: “It’s been a turbulent two-year journey (since the marriage to the Daily Beast), culminating in our decision to leave print…” I guess the marriage was a blast that created a schizophrenic double personality entity that was neither Newsweek nor the Daily Beast. The decision not to merge the Daily Beast into Newsweek.com actually spelled this inevitable doom. In fact this greatly undermined the Newsweek brand because in effect it had no digital outlet — both editorially and in terms of advertising. This decision was totally as a result of Ms. Brown’s vanity about the Daily Beast.

8: “Most of the boldface bylines and star writers who defined the brand had flown the Newsweek coop…” I wonder why some of them went to TIME?

7: “There was no executive editor… no news editor, no managing editor, no features editor, no ….” And I thought that was the reason they brought on Tina Brown.

6: “Advertisers had peeled off…” and now they are going to come back with full force into the all-digital edition? By the way, is the Daily Beast making any money online?

5: The magazine was located in an office “reminiscent of the Stasi headquarters in East Berlin.” When everything else fails, blame it on the brick and mortar building. Newsweek logo on its own building is no longer “in the eye-line of its swaggering competitor in the Time-Life Building.”

4: Newsweek is “embracing a digital medium that all our competitors will one day need to embrace… we are ahead of the curve.” Have you heard of TIME, The Economist, The Week, Bloomberg Businessweek? And by the way how is it that Bloomberg Businessweek has survived, and is thriving–after it was sold for one dollar? By the way, just for the historical record: Newsweek came into being 10 years after TIME was born, and Newsweek’s circulation was always behind TIME in its entire 79 years of publishing. Talk about being ahead of the curve.

3: The re-born, all-digital Newsweek will take “its readers to territory that is new and uncharted.” Wow… I wonder if the majority of the Newsweek readers are avid digital readers who are leaving print by the droves and are willing or wanting to take the “uncharted” road? If the “chartered” road did not work, do you truly believe that the “uncharted” road will? And if it is such a “new-spanking” entity based on 80 years of history, why abandon Newsweek’s main audience in the heartland of America? Under Ms. Brown, Newsweek has become a magazine created for and about the coasts, and a “newsmagazine” like Newsweek is, and should be, about all of America.

2: “We say sayonara to print, we thank our 1.5 million loyal readers…” I guess Ms. Brown does not believe in readership studies that estimate how many readers a magazine has per issue, while the 1.5 million circulation is the rate base number given to advertisers. There is a big difference between readers and subscribers in the magazine business. well, of course, unless the magazine had only one reader per copy, since the readership numbers are absent from Newsweek’s media kit. And, by the way, Ms. Brown said “sayonara” for the loyal magazine readers when she brought in her 80s and 90s sensibility of what would shock and/or titillate. Those were the days my friends, and contrary to believe, they did end.

1: “…Wish us luck and join us… in our all-digital future.” Well, to paraphrase the other Tina, “What’s luck got to do with it?” Oops, sorry, that was “What’s love got to do with it.” But you get my point. As one of my friends once told me, “Ms. Brown doesn’t and never has understood America.” It is all about understanding and knowing your audience; not luck or love has anything to do with it.

Well, my prediction, out of sight is indeed out of mind. Thanks, Newsweek, for the memories, may you rest in peace or pieces as you, that is, Ms. Brown, wishes. And if you ever think that the Daily Beast has a higher value as a brand than Newsweek, think not once, but twice and thrice for that matter.

For the rest of the printed magazines out there (all 10,000 print consumer magazines distributed on the nation’s newsstands), fear not, print is here to stay, alongside with digital and whatever new platforms that are yet to be invented. Bad content and irrelevant content on any platform will continue to die regardless of the device. Enough said.